The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 16, 1924, Page 3

Tuesday, December 16, 1924 ( United Front From Below vs. United Front From Above By WM.’ F. DUNNE. Two tendencies in the application of the united front policy appear crystal clear in every article in the party dis- cussion. One, the tendency towards the united front from below contain- ‘ed in the articles of the C. E. C. and its supporters—the correct line of the Communist International. The other, that of the minority, is the united front from above—a united front not with the masses but with a shosen few who call themselves lead- ers of the masses. ‘This tendency appears in all its cerise splendor in the loud wail of the minority over the fact that the C. BE. C. refuses to “endorse the pol- \oy of penetration within the C. P. P A,,”/and in a still more pronounced form in its tears over the C. E. C. resolution submitted at the A. F. of L, ‘convention outlining a program of struggle and specifying the mass or- ganizations to be used for this strug- gle against wage cuts, unemployment, injunctions, etc., instead of raising the sterile slogan of a farmer-labor party. The C. BH. C. laid down a full program of immediate demands for the A. F. of L, convention, which will bear fruit as. the class struggle be- comes ever sharper. Has there ever been in any party of the Comintern a more humorous and at the same time tragic spectacle than that of the minority of the American party bringing American capitalism tottering to its knees in the journalistic overture to their thes- is followed by the slogan, “Capitalism is falling! Long live a ‘class’ farmer- Mabor party!”? This is a sight that brings no joy to the heart of any worker who is proud of his party, but it is tue in- evitable outcome of an opportunist policy springing from a wrong ten- dency in the united front tactic. The C. H. C. believes and the Com- intern believes, that during crises of capitalism it is the task of Commun- ist Parties to rally to themselves ev- ery worker who accepts their slogans and program. The minority, however, apparently wants to build another roadhouse on the road to Communism, and if its high-sounding phrases of “leadership “of @elass’ farmerlabor party” means anything at all, it intends to play the role of landlord and entertain the weary travellérs toward Com- “munism until they are ready for more lavish hospitality in the little matter of revolution. The possibility that most of the footsore wanderers might decide to stay in the modest but comfortable “class” farmer-labor roadhouse evi- dently has not occurred to the mi- nority. Neither has the possibility occurred to them that they, as the hosts, might find the business so profitable and the environment so pleasant that they would forget entirely the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Commun- Ist Party at the end of the road. After all, the work of gathering to- gether the elements that would make a “class former-labor party”—in a period when there is no mass senti- ment for it—is not unpleasant. The minority needs only to hold a number of the conferences in which Its collective soul delights, get a “re- spectable” program that will not frighten the timid liberals and semi- hemi-dem!-Communists, put a seven- column line in the DAILY WORKER “Class Farmer-Labor Party Formed,” announce that the“conference elected William Mahoney chairman, and C. E Ruthenberg (the name of Jay Love- stone may also be used) ‘secretary,” and the child is born. 3 ’ Comrades who feel that this is not » am accurate description of the birth- process of “class farmer-labor parties” have not followed closely the Arabian - nights episodes in which our party played the part of the genii of the lamp. If one is not particular about hav- ing masses in the party described above—and it is noticeable that the minority does not say “mass class farmer-labor party,” one of these par- can be formed every day, or just) long as there are “leaders” with to hold conferences and Com- Ruthenberg does not get tired manifestos. ‘This % one of the outstanding ten- dencies of devotees of the united front from abe’ predilection for paper organizations, interminable confer- ences, substitution of powerless groups of parliamentarians for work- ers in action, manifestos that may raise fighting slogans but which at- tract workers—if any wo: Kers are at- tracted at all—not into the Commun-_ ist Party, but into halfway havens that are fertile breeding places for op- portunism and reformism. There is another characteristic, far more dangerous and inexcusable, that a false conception of the united front tactic develops in its devotees, a char- acteristic that every distorter of Marx- iam-Leninism has in common It is the use of quotations from the great teachers of the working class and the use of these quotations for the pur- pose of giving a Communist color to an opportunist policy. The worst offender in the discus- sion so far is Comrade Lovestone. In his article in the DAILY WORK» ER of Wednesday, Dec. 3, under the sub-h@&d, “Skepticism—A Menshevist Disease”—Comrade Lovestone quotes Lenin as follows: “The Marxian doctrine has weld- ed the theory and practice of the class struggle into an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE. He is no Marxist who, to justify existing conditions, dis- torts the theory which soberly con- firms the objective situation, who goes so far as to adapt himself with the greatest possible speed to any temporary lull in the revolution (1!) to throw quickly overboard his ‘re- volutionary illusions’ and to set about collecting the ‘realistic’ shreds.” Comrade Lovestone, with a not sur- prising jesuitism, attempts to use this quotation to justify what? His desire to build a “class” farmer-labor party—a siibstitute for the Workers (Communist) Party in the dally bat- tles of the working class. If ever an advocate of the united front from above was hoist with his own petard it is Comrade Lovestone, Was there ever a more apt quota- tion to describe a minority that states Plainly its disbelief in the ability of the Communist Party to fight, in its own name, for and with the working class in every daily struggle and bring directly into its own ranks the more militant of the workers? “He is no Marxist who, ‘to justify existing conditions, distorts the theory which objectively confirms the existing situation, who goes so far as to adapt himself with the greatest possible speed to any tem- porary. lull in the revolution, to throw quickly overboard his ‘revolu- tionary illusions’ and to set about collecting the ‘realistic’ shreds.” These are strange words in the mouth of one who speaks for a mi- nority that bases its “realistic” policy on not one single objective fact ex- cept its own opportunist tendency and which brands as “skeptios” a C. B. C. that bases its policy on a revolution- ary situation in the whole capitalist world and which does not share—we accept Comrade Lovestone’s,own de- finition of the minority policy—the “menshevist skepticism’—of the mi nority as to the importance of the Communist Party in the class strug- gle and its ability to attract the mass- es of America. It takes the brazen egoism which is another characteristic .of opportunist individualism, to quote the master Lenin in support of the minority posi- tion in a discussion where the Com- munist Party is opposed to a hybrid “class” farmer-labor party that the minority visualizes as an indispens- able organ in the revolutionary strug- gle. It is just exactly that the minority thinks it sees—in spite of lip service to Communist theory—that there is a “temporary lull in the revolution,” that is their real reason for advocat- ing a substitute for the Communist Party. In this they are not alone. In almost every party of the Com- intern there is or was a rightist group whose disappointment with what they term the “slow development of the revolution” led them to revisions of Leninism. In the British party this group be- came clearly defined and most of them finally left the party—Walton New- bold among them. This group lost faith in the British Communist Party, it did not develop a mass character fast enough to satisfy them—(it should be noted here that a mass par- ty to this type of individual means a “big” party that gives them a sense HOW ABOUT 1925? Everything that is born does not live! Myriads of fish and insects never see a second day of life. And hundreds of labor papers have been born that never get strong enough to walk. No revolutionary labor paper will ever celebrate its fret annivereary if it does not have In back of It the invigorating, sustaining name ef @ determined, vital, red proletariat. te of importance and has little to do with the mass character of its activi- tles), so they openly advocated liqui- dation of the Communist Party and the establishment of a loose left wing group inside the independent labor party. It seems to me that when the mi: nority advocates, not a united front with a, worker and farmer party, but the organization of its “class farmer- labor party” as a Communist prin- ciple without which the united front is impossible on the “political” field, they come dangerously close to the Newboldites. They do not attempt to show and they cannot.show where the Comin- tern has instructed the American par- ty to enter into such a maneuver when no mass movement existed. On the contrary, Comrade Lenin wrote that in the case of the British Communist Party that its task was to split the British labor party-——to make the Communist Party the party of the British proletariat. “But,” say the minority comrades, “the British labor party was organ- ized in a period of capitalist strength while here in the United States our ‘class farmer-labor party’ develops | during the decline of capitalism and will therefore take a different form and play a different role.” They are modest, these minority comrades. All they claim is that they have discovered a new instrument of revolution outside of the Commun- ist Party. This : new instrument js nothing ‘less than their “class farmer-labor party” that they organize during a period of “capitalist decline,” and which is to form the united front on the “poli- tical” field. We must leave England and go to Germany to find a parallel for this tendency. We find it there in the conception held by the right leader- ship of the German Party, of the “workers’ and farmers’ government” as an instrument of revolution—a conception and tendency that the C. I. condenmed in unmeasured terms. The minority comrades will feel outraged by these comparisons but they are drawn logically from their thesis—a thesis which puts forward a “class farmerlaber party” as a Communist principle—a “class farmer- labor party” that they state in article after article is the only form of unit- ed front on the political field. Let the minority comrades protest their good intentions. Policy and not good intentions is what determines the fate of Communist parties and the majority believes with Comrade Zin- oviey that “theses, resolutions and king. “Old Tivet” was working for articles are the best basis for forming opinions.” Going hand in hand with Comrade Lovestone’s attempt to pervert a quotation trom Lenin, his attempt to! label a C, E. C. that carried out the instructions of the Comintern in the election over his protest, as “menshe- vik skeptics,” is the arrogation of the minority to themselves of the title “old Bolsheviks.” The minority cling fondly to their “class farmer-labor party” and there- fore they are “old Bolsheviks.’ Their formula is: “Without a ‘class farmer-labor party’,” which we must organize, “even tho it has’ but 5,000 members” as that old Bolshevik Comrade Nat Kaplan states—‘“we can have no mass Communist Party.” The minority cannot point to one single authentic movement for a “class farmer-labor party” even to any sentiment for it among the mass- es. But to them the formula is too pre- cious to discard. The slogan of the Cc. BE. C,, “The Workers (Communist) Party against the LaFollette party” does not appeal to them—nor does the daily struggles for leadership in the unions and industries. Their formula has no connection with reality but they say apparently, “*Tis a poor thing but mine own!” We recall here something written by Comrade Lenin during the strenu- ous days of 1917, It is from his “Theses on Tactics” published in Pravda, April 29, 1917. “Bolshevist slogans and ideas IN GENERAL have been confirmed by history; but concretely things have developed somewhat differently than was expected, assumed a more ori- ginial,| peculiar and led form. To ignore, to forget this fact, would be to resemble those . . . of our party by repeating senseless ‘learn- ed formulae’ inetead of STUDYING the peculiarities of the new, the liv- ing reality of things. . . A Marxist must take Into consideration the true facts and living reality of to- di and not continue clinging to the theory of yesterday, which, like every other theory, at its best only outlines the fundamental and the general, only approaches a concep- tlon of the complexity of life. ‘Theory, my friend, is gray, but green Is the eternal tree of life!’” aap in the original—W. F. D. Comrade Lenin was not afraid to take issue with comrades when they pen tL a ht ca Neither is the ©, E. ©. New York Workers’ School, Register Now—208 E, 12th St. ) THE DAILY WORKER “WHICH CHANGE?” By EARL R. BROWDER. Our right wing minority tries to put the question;. “Shall we change our policy, or shall we keep the old one.” And+ Comrade Powell, in the DAILY WORKER of Dec. 6, raises a point of order against the C. E. C. the labor party movement has disap |peared from the political arena until \the last convention decision has been changed. Both the minority and their champion, Comrade Powell, ignore one factor very essential for Marxists —the objective conditions. A policy jformulated for a certain situation when carried over to a later period becomes a different policy in every- |thing except the paper and ink which | etates it. Our labor party policy under |the conditons of last year becomes a \very different thing under the condi- \tions of this year. Even such a form. alist as Comrade Powell could not ‘evade this fact if he were faced by a jrevolution which had not been prop jerly predicted by the party conven- tion, “Points of order” are no barrier |to the march of political events. But the Minority Also Wants a Change When the minority. proclaims their desire to “keep the old policy” they are, however, guilty of something |more than ignoring the above-men tioned very important fact. They are guilty of misrepresenting their own Position as stated in black ink on \white paper. The minority advances the slogan \for the present period, of: For a Class Farmer-Labor Party. But I happen to have in my member- ship book a little stamp which I can- not forget because I paid a dollar for it—one of the $50,000.00 that we spent last year on building a farmer-labor party. On it is the slogan that ex- pressed the party policy laid down by the last convention. The slogan ts: For a Mass Class Farmer-Labor Party. So we see that the C. E. C. and the minority are united on at least one thing: they both want to change the policy. While the C. E. C. wants to find more effective ways to reach the | MASS, the minority clamors for a pol icy that drops the MASS. So We Agree That Conditions Have Changed. In spite of all the protestations of the minority that conditions are just the same today as a year ago, we find on examination of their present slo- ‘gan than they, also, actually recog: \nize the change. By dropping out the word MASS from the slogan they ad jmit the most vital political change which the C. E. C. has been pointing out in its thesis and articles. By A. OVERGAARD. In the discussion on the thesis of the C. BE. C. and the Lovestone- Ruthenberg thesis, it will be well to consider the practical application of the two policies in the field of struggle in order to come to a correct conclus- an important political question over New York or on the basis of “facts” gathered in a research office but on masses and our experience in the struggles of the working class. berg thesis we are to create a special non-Communist party in order to at: tract wide masses. This theory smells too much of the ideology of the Sec. ond-and-a-Half International. The po- litical consciousness of the masses de- velops out of the struggles against the capitalist class and we cannot awaken this consciousness by just giving them new parties or by throw: ing slogans to them, unless these slo gans are based on the actual needs of the workers. We must also exam ine carefully whether there is actually movements towards the realization oi these demands. The United Front and a Farmer- Labor Party. According to the Lovestone-Ruthen- berg thesis the united front can only be realized thru the formation of ¢ farmer-labor party. This is sheer non- sense and not in line with the policy of the Communist International. The minority wants a left wing labor party or sort of Number Two, which shall take in all the disillusioned workers declaring that it has no right to say} ion. It is not enough to consider such | @ cup of tea in social settlements in| the basis of actual contact with the| According to the Lovestone-Ruthen-| Here is progress, when we can agree upon two such vital points. We agree that the policy must be changed, and we agree that the change is nec- essary because the masses are no longer moving toward a farmer-labor party. What is the necessary change in order to preserve a real Communist | policy for the Workers (Communist) |Party? That is the question. A Substitute for the W. P., or a United | Front From Below? The minority proposes to cling to the farmer-labor slogan, without the masses, and proceed to the “building {up of farmer-labor parties,” and “by | carefully directed agitation” to create {a “left class party bloc” inside of the |LaFollette movement which, at the | psychological moment, is to be split | away under the leadership of the Communists, who remain on the out- \side directing affairs. proposal of the minority is not utterly fantastical, insofar as their “class |farmer-labor party” could be crystal: | lized at all, it is a proposal to build an opportunist substitute for the Work- ers Party which is to serve in its place as the organ of struggle politically usurping the place of leadership. The Central Executive Committee thesis demands that we get down to | the realities of the class struggle, and begin to form our united front from below in the actual struggles of the |masses. In this united front in the | struggle it demands that we shall be- gin to make the masses acquainted with the Workers Party, not in the ca- pacity of a John Alden pleading with Priscilla Workingclass to marry Miles |Standish Labor Party, but in the role of the actual leader, organizer, and in- spirer of the working masses, under its own banner and with its own prac- tical and revolutionary program both for the immediate struggles and the future battles for power. No John Alden Role for Us! We must go to the masses! Not to plead the cause of an illusory farmer- labor party! Miles Standish was no damn good anyway, Priscilla would never have been happy with him, and John Alden was a fool not to ask the girl to marry himself. There is no reason why we have to be fools in the same way and plead any other cause with the working class than our own, which is the cause of the class strug: gle and the final emancipation of the working class. The original John Alden was a character not without some dignity, but if the minority have their way the Workers Party will be repeating history as a farce. Down with the “John Alden Thesis”! THE WORKERS PARTY IN ACTION. Workers Party. Traenmael in Nor- way wants such a party because he is disappointed in the Communist Inter- national. I wonder if the comrades |of the minority can not be styled dis- |appointéd Communists who have lost |confidence in the ability of a Com- munist party to organize the masses for struggle under its own name. Now let us examine a few facts. |Let us take our experience for exam- ple in the Machinist convention. In the struggle against LaFollette did we put up the farmer-labor party? No there was only one party in the field for independent political action, the Workers Party. Was it possible to have a united front on other issues in the convention with non-Communist workers? Yes of course, Amalgama- tion of the Metal Trades’ Unions, which is so vitally necessary for these workers, was one of the issues upon which a great fight took place in that convention, In that fight the small force of Communists were able to mo- bilize the majority of rank and file delegates in the convention. In the struggle for a two-year convention and two-year election of officers the united front of various forces smashed the bureaucracy, In the struggle against class collaboration, the Workers Party and the T. U. B. L. were the recogniz- ed leaders. That the LaFollette movement hac swallowed up the farmer-labor party was clearly demonstrated in the con vention. Who were the ones that fought for the labor party reslution? The Workers Party. But what was the vote? The same as the vote cast in a straight Workers Party fight | Insofar as the | Page Three No Disagreement Here! We discuss the future tasks of the party preliminary to a decision. After a decision is rendered we march forward unitedly to carry it into effect. In all this the DAILY WORK- ER lends a BIG hand. Today it constitutes our forum for dis- cussion. Tomorrow it will help to carry the decision made into life. We can not get along with- out our daily. And if you are sincere In your desire to keep it, youll HELP INSURE IT FOR 1925. INSURANCE POLI- CIES ARE ISSUED. Denomina- tion: $10, $5 and $1, Make it your policy to BUY A POLICY. THE WORKERS PARTY: Willlam Z. Foster, Chairman Cc. E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary ahead under the name of the farmer. labor party. I can well remember the famous mass meeting in Chicago under the auspices of the farmer-labo: party where we launched the cam paign for MacDonald and Bouch witt farmer-labor speakers. Then the fol lowing meeting under the auspices of the Workers Party where the electior campaign was launched for Foster and Gitlow. In the former who were par ticipating? Members of the Worker: Party and Y. W. L. and a number o sympathizers. In the latter we foun¢ the same audience with much greatei enthusiasm, Discussion of Our Party’s Immediate Tasks Comrade Ru in his article lin the DAILY WORKER for Dec. 1 |wants to create the impression that |some other party than the Commun- ist party can better fight the coming battles of the workers. Comrade Ruthenberg also seems to create the impression that half a million workers jwere organized into a fnarmer-labor party. I would like to be shown me correctness of this statement. It is |true that representatives of that many |workers were brot together for “con- | ferences, but Comrade Ruthenberg for- 'gets that after each conference a split {took place and that in the meantime |the LaFollette movement swallowed jup the labor parties, The majority thesis is correct in |that it examines whether or not there |is an actual demand or movement toward a farmer-labor party, whether this slogan for a farmer-labor party can move large masses of workers and farmers and base their conclusions on the actual conditions existing at thie | time. The majority thesis also propose {to apply the united front from below lin the actual everyday struggles of | the workers; it proposes to Bolshevise jthe party, thru systematic education of our members, not in farmer-labor ism but in fundamental Communist principles, thru: the building up and re-organization of the party on a shop nucle! basis, the strengthening of our industrial work, thru the shop commit tee movement, our participation tn strikes, the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy, etc. By this cor- rect application of the united front thru struggle the Workers (Commun. ist) Party will become the leader ot these struggles and develop into a powerful mass Communist party and realize the proletarian dictatorship in the United States. CALIFORNIA PROVES MAJORITY POSITION. By DAVID A. GORMAN. In discussing the thesis of the C. EB. C. that is the majority thesis and the reason for my approval of the majori- ty position, it is well that I relate the experience we had in Los Angeles, Cal, immediately prior to the forma- tion of the Los Angeles labor party, during its existence and after. Like in all other centers the polit- ical policy pursued by the local labor movement was the endorsing of good candidates. That was done thru a joint executive board. Many of the politicians endorsed by the joint board were also endorsed by the chamber of commerce and the Los Angeles Times. Particularly so in the local city elec- tions which the rank and file took more interest in than in other cam- aigns. The opposition of the rank and jfile against such treachery expressed litself in the labor council thru their delegates. Early in January of 1923 the labor council passed a motion calling upon the joint board to invite all work- ing class political parties to send representatives to its meeting for the Purpose of creating a united front in the approaching city election. At the next meeting of the board the S, P. had two spokesmen. The Workers Party was represented by the writer. The socialist position was to form a loose alliance between themselves and the trade unions for the city elec- tion. I presented our party position to immediately form a labor party. Being a member of the joint board, I pro- Posed the calling of a convention of trade unions to decide the future po- litical policy of the local labor move- ment. A motion carried to call a con- vention for March 8, 1928. As the call was being sent out to the unions, our labor party resolution passed the Ma- chinists’ Union and that resolution was sent to every A. F. of L. union in the city for endorsement. On March 8 the convention opened with about 175 delegates representing 55 unions. The labor party was formed. The writer was elected chair- man. At the next meeting of the L. P. many independent unions joined along with the S. P., W. P., Workmen’s Circle and even the proletarian party, The united front was complete. We entered the city election cam- Paign and we failed to nominate our Candidates in the primaries. The unions that remained in the L, P. after the election represented 11,000 members paying per capita taxon the in the LaFollette camp and the Work-|##inst LaFollette, the mafority of|basis of one cent per member per ers Party shall be the Number One; we shall then proceed to disillusion these workers into the Number One, the Workers Party, What will be the result? This policy will no doubt lead to the weakening of the Workers Party by taking from it all the functions of lead. functions will be taken care of by this substitute, it will also tend to liqui- date the Workers Party. to the minority the Work- not be used to fight for of the working care of by “revolutionary” class party as Comrade Amter correspond- I would like to know wherein \ | the delegates were satisfied that La Follette was taking care of their po- litical needs. Our principal task was to disillusion the rank and file dele gates in the LaFollette bugaboo and against that we put our united front program for {mmediate action and the Workers Party. the minority, who is lead- corse in Paterson in their strike against the silk manufacturers’ Their answer can only be: the Work- ers Party. Who was leading the strug: gle of the unorganized workers against the Pullman company and the West ern Steel company in the sporadic strikes in Pullman and Hegewisch? The Workers Party. The minority thesis fails to state whether or not tion campaign in the name of the Workers Party. Let us examine what would have happened it we had gone | = month. When the call was issued for the July 3 convention the L. P. sent two delegates. We later affiliated with the Federated, which resulted in the withdrawal of the 8S. P., the prole- tarian party and many unions, The L, P. later issued a call for a state convention to form a state labor party. This convention was called off in order to first fight within the state C. P. P. A. Being defeated in the C. P. P. A, we formed a provisional committee for a state F. L. P, Several months later at a state convention the C. F, L. P. was formed. The state F. L. P. and the Los Angeles L. P. send delegates to St. Paul. After St. Paul the rank and file of the unions went over to LaPollette. The L, P. ceased to be a mass organ- ization. Before the LaFollette wave many workers expressed their opposi- tion to the old parties thru the labor party. It is obvious to every one now that those workers who broke with the old parties are accepting the La- Follette movement instead. Where is the basis for a F. L. P. slogan? Prior to the LaFollette wave those workers who accepted the L. P. were willing to accept our leadership and we were successful in isolating the reactionary officials from the rank and file. Now it is impossible to do that with a F. L. P. We must adopt slogans that the rank and file will fight for, and on that basis destroy the leadership of the labor fakers. Furthermore the masses can be moved effectively with Political parties whose program is parliamentary only during parlia- mentary campaigns. We had that ex- perience in Los Angeles. Immediately after the city elections our L. P. meetings were attended by a handful of people. Many unions dropped their jaffiliation. When mass meetings were called, they were a complete failure. The rank and file of the trade unions did not attend and the militant work- ers ignored them because they were not revolutionary enough, Today the F. L. P. slogan will not create any enthusiasm amongst the masses. In fact the common expres. sion amongst workers today is: Wait until 1928 and we will put LaFollette over, We can only fight this LaPol- lette illusion with untted front slogans that touch the immediate needs of the workers and not with abstract slogans for new parties. LLL LLL LLL LLL ttl, LS a] Post Cards in Colors Something New and Different. Use them for your regular cor= respondence. Have a set for your album. No. 1—Lenin, directing the revolution No. 2—Lenin, when 4 years old No. 3—The Red Flag of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics No. 4—The Russian state seal and emblem No. 5=-Trotsky, commander of the | Soviet Red Army ONE CARDSCENTS In lots of 10 or more, 2c per card. 1% in lots of 100 or more, oe money order, check or post age to Literature Department WORKERS PARTY OF AMERIGA 1113 W. Washington Bly Chicago iit ™ Pa SSS NS Sl HELP! HELP! Give Us a Hand— We are swamped again, There is just a load of work piling up in our office and our small force is struggling hard to get it done. If any comrades have a day, an hour or a minute to spare, COME ON OVER— GIVE US A HAND!